MNS PRINTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1073/BANG/2015Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2016AY 2010-114 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient grounds for condoning the delay. Ignorance of law is not an excuse, and the assessee did not disclose the source of the alleged ill-advice.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 47 days, claiming a bona fide belief that an appeal was not required against the CIT's order. They relied on a Supreme Court judgment regarding advocate negligence.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned due to a bona fide belief and ignorance of law, without disclosing the source of advice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

For Appellant: Shri A.N.Kapali, CA
For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)
Hearing: 28/04/2016Pronounced: 27/05/2016

Per INTURI RAMA RAO, AM :

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee-company directed against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore-4 passed u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short] dated 19/03/2015 for the assessment year 2010-11.

Page 2 of 4 2. At the outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 47 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee had filed a petition praying for condonation of the said delay stating that it was under a bona fide belief that appeal was required to be filed only against the consequential order passed pursuant to directions of the CIT u/s 263. It was further stated that it is only after realizing that appeal was required to be filed against the impugned order, the appeal was filed with the delay. The assessee has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N.Balakrishnan vs. M.Krishnamurthy reported in AIR 1998 SC 3222 for the proposition that the delay on account of negligence of Advocate should be condoned. After perusal of the averments made in the condonation petition, it is clear that the assessee had not disclosed the source of legal advice who has given advice that no appeal was required to be filed against impugned order and the day-today delay was also not explained. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Spporthi Sadan Convent vs. CIT (68 taxmann.co. 245)(Kar), on identical facts, held that the delay cannot be condoned as ignorance of law is not an excuse and the assessee had not revealed source of ill-advice given. The Hon’ble High Court held in parat.7 to tell as follows:

“7. This is not a case wherein the appellant is an illiterate person, who may not know the repercussion in law. Further, it is the specific case of the appellant that the Trust was under bona fide impression that Page 3 of 4 Registration under Section 12A was not a condition precedent and such impression was based on advise. But, nonetheless, the appellant neither chose to reveal the source of such advice nor replied to the questions posed by the Tribunal. In such circumstances, the appeal challenging the order of the Tribunal is only a reiteration of grounds urged before the Tribunal.”

8.

The learned counsel for the appellant contended that though the counsel appearing for the appellant offered to furnish the details sought for by the Tribunal, no time was granted by the Tribunal. No specific ground is urged in this behalf in the pleadings either in the form of statement of facts or affidavit to substantiate such contention.

9.

Ignorance of law is no excuse. We may usefully refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. Government of U.P. [1975] 4 SCC 378, wherein it is held as follows:— But we are in agreement with the High Court on the other two grounds. As mentioned earlier, the impugned assessments were made in 1949. The writ petition was filed in 1956. The explanation given by the petitioner for this long delay is that he did not know the correct legal position and lie came to know about the same after the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the Commissioner of Sales Tax, UP. v. Modi Food Products Lid. Every individual is deemed to know the law of the land. The courts merely interpret the law and do not make law. Ignorance of law is not an excuse for not taking appropriate steps within limitation. Therefore the argument that the appellant did not know the true legal position is not one that can be accepted in law....... 10. In the circumstances, we are of the considered view that the appellant has not made out any ground for condonation of delay of 997 days before the Tribunal. We see no error in the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal fails and stands dismissed.”

The Hon’ble High Court had followed the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co.

Page 4 of 4 Ltd. vs. Government of UP (1975) 4 SCC 378 that ignorance of law is not an excuse and therefore, delay in filing of appeal cannot be condoned on account of ignorance of law. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case cited supra is squarely applicable to the present case. In the present case also, the assessee not revealed the ill-advice nor produced any material in support of the averments made in affidavit. Therefore, we hold that it is not a fit case to condone the delay in filing the present appeal and the petition for condonation of delay is dismissed.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →